Psychoanalyzing the Psychoanalyst

12.20.07 | 31 Comments | Filed Under Commentary, Indian Politics, Media Watch

I generally avoid reading Ashis Nandy. Not because he cannot write in plain English, but because his writings defy sense in any language. To give the devil its due, I decided to give this a try. Not only did it confirm all my suspicions of the psychoanalyst but scarred me off him forever.

Every secularist worth anything is infuriated at Modi’s enduring popularity, which defies their mountainous analyses aimed at demolishing him. Their solution: pile on more analyses. Ashis Nandy operates in the same mould although I wouldn’t call him a mainstream secularist. His only claim to fame is his star credentials as an eminent clinical psychologist writing magnum opuses that nobody reads or cares about.

Before that, a glance at the mountain of Secular Analyses on Gujarat since 2002: initially Modi was a mass murderer, maniac, Nazi, Fascist…inspired by a murderous ideology…he wouldn’t win the elections because he didn’t have any economic development to his credit, etc. But he won spectacularly… so what, hate-based vote harvesting would take him only so far…now that he has demonstrated his development credentials, they tried an "expose" of sorts that strangely lost steam mid-river…

These tomes of mountainous nonsense are bounteous variants of exactly one strand: demonize Modi using any device at any cost. Fiction is Fact. Hate speech is free speech. Ashis Nandy adds another pebble to that mountain using the same devices refined to perfection with the fire of psychological prowess.

As an intellectual nobody cares about, Nandy, like that other sham-historian, Guha, targets Gujaratis as a specific race. The reason is right at hand: how dare they re-elect a "dangerous" man like Modi. More alarmingly, it looks like the election this year is again loaded in his favour. The Fearless Paper admits this in its "exit" polls.

Ashis Nandy froths forth these outrageous gems:

Gujarati middle class is at the moment having a love affair with hatred and paranoia. Like Bengali babus and Kashmiri Muslims, they were traditionally classified as non-martial by the British Empire and they smarted under that classification. Even when they themselves do not embrace violence, they vicariously enjoy it. They enjoy it even when the violence is directed towards them. In Surat city there’s now a statue of Shivaji, who sacked Surat more than once! Modi has tapped into that self-hatred of the Gujarati middle class and the sanction for violence that flows from it [...] Modi knows how to keep the middle class captive—through rhetoric, fear and anxiety. He knows only too well that his success lies in keeping that fear and anxiety alive. Thanks to the dramatic way he broke the threshold of violence in a society where the tolerance of violence has always been low, Gujaratis have begun to feel heroic. Modi has given them the vicarious pleasure of participating in violence, even while maintaining a certain distance from it. That is why the Gujarati middle class has become so hostile to any criticism of the present political culture of Gujarat. In many ways it’s a sick culture.

I’m not sure what propels people like Nandy to pen such self-righteous absurdity. That passage is so horrid that it defies dissection by the might of its sheer preposterousness. How does Nandy characterize an entire race or class of people with no basis in reality? Has he psychoanalyzed all Gujaratis? Does he have their recorded admission that they love violence because they hate themselves? Is an act of violence always rooted in self-hatred? Isn’t it reasonable that the tit for tat principle also has a place in human behaviour? Or is Nandy’s mass psychoanalysis of Gujaratis a result of his visible hatred of Modi? Would he praise these selfsame Gujaratis if Modi loses this election that they have "seen sense"?

However, in mentioning Shivaji, Nandy slightly slips off the mask he’s wearing: if you like Shivaji, you suffer from acute self-hatred. More importantly, there’s no evidence that Shivaji attacked Surat for racist reasons, which is the context of Nandy’s mention of Shivaji in this article. Nandy would do well to reopen his school history textbooks and read up on the Battle of Surat.

Nothing warrants Nandy to single out Gujaratis on the subject of tolerance of violence. At other places, Nandy has spouted the same cliches of "how the land that gave Gandhi has become soo violent." Gujarat has also given us Sardar Patel, who restored Hyderabad to India using violent methods. I’d like to know how Nandy characterizes him. Also, Nandy’s choice of words is quite interesting: sick culture.

Ashis Nandy writes as though the entire personality of Narendra Modi is his personal fiefdom. He seems to think the psychological playwords at his command give him this right. To bolster his "assessment" of Modi, he culls imaginary crap about the RSS and the dreaded Hindu Nationalist ideology. I’ll examine only the most funny nonsense in this selection:

Modi began his life as an RSS pracharak and the RSS is typically a product of middle-class India: it involves a rejection of both folk Hinduism and ordinary Hindus. Built on Hindu self-hatred and hostility to what is seen as the disorganised, folksy,anarchic, non-rational style of Hinduism that pervades village India,the RSS and the Hindu nationalists might make compromises with it for the sake of electoral politics, but like their alter-ego, the Leninist left, they presume that an enlightened middle class of partly deracinated Hindus will act as the vanguard and lead the Hindus towards an European-style nation-state. It is not an accident that the founding fathers of the RSS were mostly non-believers or weak believers. And even the present leadership of the RSS is not known for its love of Hinduism as it is; they want to retool Hinduism and make it more like Islam and Christianity.

Questions for the clinical psychologist:

  • What exactly is folk Hinduism?
  • Who are "ordinary" Hindus? Are there any extra-ordinary Hindus, or is that extraordinary Hindus?
  • What is Hindu self-hatred? Why do Hindus hate themselves if they indeed do? How did you deduce that? How can you prove that?
  • Again, just show me exactly one sign that defines folksy, anarchic, non-rational style of Hinduism? While you are at it, please also share your wisdom on the rational style (sic) of Hinduism?
  • How is the RSS an "alter-ego" of the Leninist Left? More importantly, as a clinical psychologist, do organizations have egos, and alter egos? Or did you use "alter ego" merely as a literary flourish?

The last line is absolutely hilarious. If anything, the RSS is an object of derision precisely because it lacks both the intellectual polish and the language to defend itself. The RSS is yet to publish a reasoned critique of both Islam and Christianity close to something done by scholars outside organizational frameworks.

Ashis then shares a closely-guarded, personal experience that freezes your blood. I believe that experience has led the him to treat Modi’s personality as his fief:

I first met Narendra Modi over 15 years ago when I interviewed him. As a clinical psychologist, my interview went into his inner life, but it would be unprofessional to go into that. However, I can say this much: I found him dangerous. He was just getting into politics then and as a young RSS pracharak, his ideology,especially his almost paranoid perception of Muslims, was neat, earnest and frightening. I fear the earnestness of ideologues, and the incorruptible among them are the worst. It’s a disastrous combination:incorruptibility and earnestness. They will self-destruct rather than compromise on ideology.

What this learned academician never reveals is whether Modi met him as a patient meets a doctor. That’s because Nandy uses the word unprofessional. So did Nandy interview him as a practising, professional psychologist? Or did he seek Modi’s interview on a different pretext, which he doesn’t reveal here? What does that tell us about Nandy? He then builds on that premise and spews more psychological stuff:

Modi’s attitude to Muslims is understandable. His ideology, perhaps like all ideologies, has to setup a fall guy or anti-self. And that anti-self defines him.

Sorry, but what the fuck is an anti-self? Is it the antonym of a pro-self? Having "proved" that Modi suffers from psychological problems of Himalayan magnitude, Nandy makes a lofty-sounding assertion that:

All of us have a bit of Modi in us, but we don’t acknowledge it. The ruthlessness you see in him

As evidence, what does he present in the entire 3-page article? Nothing apart from terms that nobody knows or understands.

I’m aware Ashis Nandy is highly regarded in some (?) circles as having achieved the pinnacle of success in psychology. This article is proof that a lifetime of studying the inner workings of other people’s minds leads to undiagnosable hallucination.

Tags: , , , , ,

timeline

31 Comments

Leave your comment

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. Subscribe to these comments.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

:

: